Talk:Calamity
Time travel? Obviously we are working with limited info currently, but the impression I get is that the Calamity has caused rifts in time, and some of the events are not just memories. The main piece of evidence for this I've see so far is here, where Percival Graves is being attacked (for some reason) by a MACUSA Executioner. At the end of the event it says: "Percival Graves has been returned to MACUSA Auror Headquarters 1926". Putting aside the oddity of this event if possible (why is his memory being extracted in the first place? Is it Percival Graves or Grindelwald, etc...) the language doesn't seem to indicate anything about this being a memory, but rather Percival Graves actually being pulled through time and returned. The whole notion of memory events is odd as well. Memories have been extracted by the Calamity and the SOS Task Force has to - return them to the owner? Change them? Just view them? etc... If anyone finds complete gameplay video with a memory Foundable it would be interesting to see how they summarize the event. Thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:23, April 28, 2019 (UTC) :I think the whole point of them going out of their way to say memories (of all things) have been conjured by the Calamity is, from a game developer's perspective, to give them an excuse to include characters and objects they wouldn't be able to otherwise (dead characters, destroyed objects, etc.). I think it's important to note that the in-game introduction with Constance Pickering, makes no reference to magic having been "cutting through all of time" (like you can read in the current revision of Calamity), but does indeed mention "memories" being also scattered about. :I'd just read the line about "MACUSA, 1926" as the time and place the memory originally belonged. :(As for Graves, the executioner is a Confoundable, so it's not an actual person/memory/whatever, just another weird magical phenomenon like all the other crazy stuff the player has to get rid of.) -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 01:34, April 28, 2019 (UTC) ::I agree with the developer's intent is in order to be able to portray everything ever from the HP universe. So the interpretation is that a Confoundable is not actually a troll or whatnot but just a magical event/echo(?) that is trapping other magical events/echoes and the player is not interacting with any "actual" objects? That seems hard to square with language like the magical megaphone has been returned to the Department of Magical Sports and Games... ::Or it just the Confoundaables that are magic and ephermeral and the Foundables are actual "things", if only a memory when being returned to a previous time? ::I know we're going to have to bend ourselves in knots to make sense of this, just trying to figure out how many loops of "logic" it might take ;) --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:42, April 28, 2019 (UTC) :::The way I understood it, Foundables are actual people/objects/memories that have to be returned to their proper place whereas Confoundable are just bursts of chaotic magic trapping Foundables (hence why the Confoundables are just defeated or banished in some way, not returned anywhere). :::All in all, I think the best explanation is that anachronisms can be swept under the rug as memories, because that's the one thing that has been mentioned to be the case. And it's simpler and easier to explain, anyway — how else would we explain Snape being thrown back in time to Barchester Cathedral in 1857 the Potions Classroom in 1991 and proceed to live the rest of his life like nothing happened? -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 02:05, April 28, 2019 (UTC) ::::Fair enough. I agree that if "memories" are how they events are framed in the explanatory intro (I missed this apparently) then it is best to proceed under that interpretation and everyone can keep an eye open for further information as needed. Definitely lightens the load in having to explain and reconcile all the anachronistic events! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:16, April 28, 2019 (UTC) I've watched several youtube videos, and in no shape or form is Snape trapped in the giant potion's bottle even remotely indicated of being a mere memory of the man. To me, it seems like the Calamity snatches people and creatures from other places and, in the case of Snape, Graves and younger members of the trio, other places'' in time'', trapped by confoundables, which anchors them to where and when they are until released. The fact that their time-traveling misadventure isn't in-universe could be because everything from more pressing matters to focus on, it being addressed away from students behind closed doors, (in the case of Snape), or even something as simple as those who fall victim to the Calamity soon thereafter being ordered by the Ministry to sign the Official Magical Secrets Act pending an investigation by the Department of Mysteries. It's also quite possible people can be sent back in time, but, since they see no familiar envirorment or people they know looking older than they're used to, they don't actually know they traveled through time. Maester Martin (talk) 02:55, April 28, 2019 (UTC) :Tom Riddle wasn't encased in a phial in Chamber of Secrets and what made Dumbledore suspect he was more than a memory was that it started to act in more than a stereotypical fashion and tried to kill Ginny, not the way he looked like. A memory of Bertha Jorkins also emerges from the Pensieve in Goblet of Fire, and no indication is given that she looks in any way different than the actual Bertha's supposed to. :To not even address the fact that, per , the longest period of time one can travel without the possibility of serious harm to the traveller or to time itself is around five hours -- not 90+ years, as in the case of Graves. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 03:15, April 28, 2019 (UTC) ::Any chance you have a link to a video with the introduction you mentioned Seth? I can't find a gameplay video with this intro where "memories" are listed as the explanation for some of the Calamity-related events. Thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:24, April 28, 2019 (UTC) Then why are "young Hermione sent back to the Forest of Dean', and not the 'memory of young Hermione Granger'`Also - the passage you refer to, goes as follows; Frowning slightly, he prodded the thoughts within the basin with the tip of his wand. Instantly, a figure rose out of it, a plump, scowling girl of about sixteen, who began to revolve slowly, with her feet still in the basin. '''She took no notice whatsoever of Harry or Professor Dumbledore'. Why? because it was a memory, she wasn't really there. Once freed, however, each and every person from the past acknowledges you, nodding a thank you and so forth. A memory couldm't do that. I also think you put to much stock on the word. "Memories" could have meant that seeing people from the past can remind you or otherwise be thought-provoking. Maester Martin (talk) 03:25, April 28, 2019 (UTC) Also - the part of "cuttting through time" is found hereMaester Martin (talk) 03:31, April 28, 2019 (UTC). :The reference to memories is in Constance Pickering's first interaction with the player (see it here); she mentions "people, things, even memories have been stolen and displaced, tossed about the world" (can't see how that can be read as a poetic reference, as Maester Martin suggests). I see no other Foundables on the full list (which you can check out here) that might fit the bill for "memories" except the anachronistic ones. :They would call her "Young Hermione" because she ''is a Young Hermione. Also, I needn't point out TechCrunch is not a canon source. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 03:41, April 28, 2019 (UTC) ::Thanks for the link! Although I agree with what you are saying, I would love to know what the last word is on this frame. It's covered up and they skip the audio dialogue but it may be helpful, although I'm guessing it's just "place" or something equally vague. They later say "returned Hagrid to where he belongs" so that tells us little. ::However, on this frame Constance says "As you return Foundables to their appropriate time and place..." which does muddy the waters a bit. Do memories return to their time and place? I agree that we have to reach an interpretation that is consistent with other known info (like the PM info on time travel (there is of course Cursed Child's take on this however cough cough ;) ) but the WU developers haven't made it clear or simple! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:14, April 28, 2019 (UTC) The reference to memories is in Constance Pickering's first interaction with the player (see it here); she mentions "people, things, even memories have been stolen and displaced, tossed about the world" (can't see how that can be read as a poetic reference, as Maester Martin suggests). ' I don't know about "poetic", but the word "metaphor" came to mind. Unless you are using those two synonymously? '''They would call her "Young Hermione" because she ''is a Young Hermione. Also, I needn't point out TechCrunch is not a canon source. If she's nothing but a memory of young Hermione, then it isn't a young Hermione. It'd be more along the line of a video clip of Hermione. Memories are magically visiualized representations/manifestation of a person's recollection, it's not a being, and young Hermione, as well as all other person you encounter, are aware of their surroundings, the threat the face and are aware you saved them, acknowledging you in one way or another before gonig back where they came from), To say a memory of young Hermione is ''a young Hermione would be akin to saying that if you took a photo of me, I lost the photo after it was developed, and you found it three days later, largely intact and dropped it by my mailbox, you'd be sending me back the photo of me, not a three day younger version of me. Also, I would think that WB Games’s Jonathan Knight was a valid source, irrespective of what website it is that documents what the game developers are saying about it? '''Ironyak1: '''Roughly how long are you into the game in that clip, what event is going on? I can try and look up some gameplays for you and find out? Maester Martin (talk) 04:43, April 28, 2019 (UTC). :For the missing intro text about Hagrid, it says "return Hagrid back to his rightful place". Again, not real specific. I agree that the anachronistic Foundables are what matches the specified memories best, but I wish the developers had used the term "echoes", which would help explain the ability to acknowledge and interact with the surroundings (like the reverse echoes caused by Prior Incantato). Instead we're left to sort through the possible canon implications of the poor language choices in a third-tier source. Given the limited nature of the information at hand, I think we have to take the most conservative interpretation possible (memories) until we have a much fuller set of examples to consider that may help define some better options. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:49, April 28, 2019 (UTC) '''For the missing intro text about Hagrid, it says "return Hagrid back to his rightful place". Again, not real specific.' I think that is rather more specific than you give it credit for. Hagrid has not died in canon, so the game developers did not need to bring him back from the past, since he still exist in the present. They simply moved him from place A to place B and had him sent back to the former. . I agree that the anachronistic Foundables are what matches the specified memories best, but I wish the developers had used the term "echoes", which would help explain the ability to acknowledge and interact with the surroundings (like the reverse echoes caused by Prior Incantato). ''' Do you guys just really ''hate ''time-travel in fiction? Is that it? :P Jokes aside, again, that doesn't really work either: Echoes are more solid than ghosts, but visibly less so than the living. There is nothing about these deeased characters that seem even remotely spectral. Furthermore, why would you send the temporary manifistaton of a departed soul back in time wherein the individual is still alive and kicking? (Snape, for example). Isn't that sort of - I don't know, kind of mean? Why wouldn't the echoes "move on"? '''Instead we're left to sort through the possible canon implications of the poor language choices in a third-tier source. I am just going on a haunch here, because I might have misunderstood what you are talking about, but - if a game in second-tier, then how is commentary from the people who made it third-tier? Also, Constance Pickering knows even less about the Calamity than we do, so... Given the limited nature of the information at hand, I think we have to take the most conservative interpretation possible (memories) until we have a much fuller set of examples to consider that may help define some better options. And I think we don't have to, because I disagree with your assessment on the state of affairs of said information. Maester Martin (talk) 01:27, April 29, 2019 (UTC) :You argument about the "Young Hermione" not being actually the "Young Hermione" is a semantic splitting of hairs. Sure she wouldn't be, but it's entirely logical someone could refer to something like that in that manner, for brevity and simplicity. Note how in Goblet of Fire the narrator refers to Bertha Jorkins's memory that emerged from the Pensieve as "Bertha" ("Bertha sank back into Pensieve...") even though he wasn't the real Bertha, strictly speaking (who had even been killed already by that time); and how Tom Riddle's memory is consistently referred to, simply, as Tom Riddle in Chamber of Secrets. :Note that the part you're citing in the TechCrunch the article is not a direct quote from the game developers, so it could just be an imprecise turn-of-phrase (elsewhere, the article makes reference to Fleur Delacoeur, for instance). : is indeed tier-three canon. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 22:36, April 29, 2019 (UTC) Please forgive my tardy response, but all sixteen apartments in the apartment bulding where I am renting have been offline since Friday morning. With that out of the way, though... ^^' You argument about the "Young Hermione" not being actually the "Young Hermione" is a semantic splitting of hairs. If I had pettily started to take issue with someone using the word "vehicle" rather than cars in a conversation about cars, I'd agree with you. I am, however, making a distinction that's actally relevant: Hermione and a memory of Hermione, is not the same thing. Sure she wouldn't be, but it's entirely logical someone could refer to something like that in that manner, for brevity and simplicity. Note how in Goblet of Fire the narrator refers to Bertha Jorkins's memory that emerged from the Pensieve as "Bertha" ("Bertha sank back into Pensieve...") even though he wasn't the real Bertha, strictly speaking (who had even been killed already by that time); and how Tom Riddle's memory is consistently referred to, simply, as Tom Riddle in Chamber of Secrets. Flawless logic. Except the fact that the text in the books are used decriptively to convey Harry's thoughts and feelings. The text on the screen in Wizards Unite, however, rather than being part of a bigger whole as part of a narrative tied to a POW character, is purely informative, and used to ensure and/or supplement the gamer's understanding of what is happening on screen. For that brief text to refer to a memory of Hermione Granger from 1997 as the real thing within the game would be willfully deveptive, at beast. And why would WB do that? Note that the part you're citing in the TechCrunch the article is not a direct quote from the game developers, so it could just be an imprecise turn-of-phrase, Okay, it's 0,01% certain it is an imprecise turn-of-phrase and 99,9% certain it's information provided directly by WB gaming or another official source, without being a direct quote. I'll give you that one. (elsewhere, the article makes reference to Fleur Delacoeur, for instance). :And what would have prevented Fleaur Delacour from being snatched up by the Calamity and ancored to the future by a Confundable like Snape, Hermione, Graves, etc? Maester Martin (talk) 14:03, May 6, 2019 (UTC) ::Strictly speaking, while the narrator does convey Harry's thoughts, he is a detached third-person observer. In the examples I cited, the narrator is objectively describing what's going on, not Harry's perceptions. At any rate the point was that the vague, simpler choice of words seems plausible. ::The point about Fleur Delacoeur was that they got the name wrong. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 01:20, May 7, 2019 (UTC) I beg to differ. Although there is a "narrator" that informs us about what's going on in a manner consistent with an external observer, the narritive follows Harry as long as he is the POW character, and what you call "objectivel describing what's going on" is, as I see it, merely a description of what Harry sees. But even if I concurred, it doesn't change the fact that eqating the narritive from a book describing an entire event and a brief sentence in a game that isn't descriptive ''but ''informative and aimed at clearifying what happens to the objects and/or organisms saved from the Confundables, is ridiculous. Listen, I get it, you for some reason interpret this to be vauge, but it really ''isn't. Also - I didn't notice the misspelling of Fleur's name until now, but I fail to see how a typo is relevant as a comparison. We are, after all, talking about how an entire sentence that is rather specific supposedly is supposed to mean something else entirely. To be honest with you, the only way in which it can ''realistically ''be said to be vauge and refer to mere memories are if whichever WB Games employee that authored it went out of his/her way to make it misleading. And that, Seth, is something I do ''not ''find plausible. Maester Martin (talk) 13:12, May 8, 2019 (UTC) :I'm not equating anything to the narrative of the books; as I've already said, I'm pointing out the possibility that the wording used could just have been simplified for simplicity's sake. :And, again, the TechCrunch article wasn't written by a WB Games employee. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| '''Seth Cooper' ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 00:34, May 9, 2019 (UTC) And I concurred. Granted that we acknowledge the fact that whoever wrote the sentence that way also ''happens to have gone out of their way to be misleading, That's the only reason why a sentence would be written as to tell us one thing, but mean an entirely other. Also - the article was written while interviewing a WB Games employee/with information provided by WB Games, so what does that tell you? Maester Martin (talk) 06:19, May 9, 2019 (UTC) ::The simpler explanation would be not that whoever wrote that was actively trying to be misleading, rather that they could have been imprecise. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| '''Seth Cooper' ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 15:50, May 9, 2019 (UTC) Not really. If someone wrote "Hermione Granger was returned to the Forest of Dean, 1997" as a simplification of something else entirely as opposed to "Memory restored/secured", then he/she is either going out of their way to mislead us, or said individual are being purposefully dense. There is no way around it, Seth, because no one ''is ''that ''stupid and qualified to work with a video game with a topic as sophisticated as Harry Potter at the same time. That aside, the Foundable Hermione is interacting with the Counfundable trapping "it", which ''could not happen. Again, a memory is not a living, breathing, concious thing, it's a recollection personified. Even if something ''could ''trap memories in place, it would not have the ability to take notice of neither the counfundables nor the witch/wizard that released it from its binds. One should think that if we're dealing with a memory, these memories would have been thetered to a Counfoundable version of a pensive, from which they appear to have emerged and could not move from, premitting Muggles who may stumble over them to see both. But, again, once freed, however, each and every person from the past acknowledges you, nodding a thank you and so forth. A memory couldm't do that. Maester Martin (talk) 18:17, May 9, 2019 (UTC)